Clarks refusing to exchange faulty sandals

worksurvivor

prettyandfluffy said:

I would be inclined to take them to an old-fashioned shoe repairer (cobbler) and get the buckle replaced, possibly both if they can't match what is on the shoe already.  Not free but shouldn't be expensive either and a lot less hassle.

I took them into a branch of Timpsons to see if they were repairable after the manageress of Clarks refused to accept the return. 

Having confirmation that they are repairable, I decided to seek satisfaction, and to pursue a complaint against Clarks first. 

I would like to have them accept liability, exchange the faulty goods, apologize for being so arsey, and confirm that staff will be given appropriate advice and training with regard to consumer law and customer interaction.

worksurvivor

Ergates said:

worksurvivor said:

Ergates said:

ButterCheese said:

I mean, theoretically you could have found "Dave's" card statement in the bin, and tried it on with every shop that Dave spent money in in order to get a refund?

You're missing the part about the OP also having a pair of sandals that exactly match the purchase details that are broken.

Civil cases are decided on balance of probability - we're well beyond that here.

Exactly — I have the shoe: QED. 

I resented the snide insinuation that the sandals presented for exchange may have been stolen.

As it's beyond 6 months then, putting aside the proof of purchase for the moment, Clarks' are allowed to ask you to provide evidence that the sandals were faulty, rather than damaged by use.  This is often in the form of a statement from some independent qualified person - a shoe repair place (e.g. Timpsons) should be able to do this.  They might charge - which you can claim back from the retailer if successful.   Might be worth getting a repair quote from them at the same time to determine if it's worth the time and effort to pursue this.

The broken buckle is evidence — if the buckle had not broken, the sandal would not be faulty.

Under consumer law, goods must be fit for purpose — one would reasonably expect a pair of sandals costing £70-odd to have buckles that are of sufficient quality to last longer than six months and a few days without breaking.

Grumpy_chap

It is over six months since the sandals were purchased so the onus is on the consumer to provide a report that the sandals were inherently faulty and not just worn out.
That is probably the six months that Clark's staff mentioned when referring to "policy".
Do you have the independent report that evidences the fault present at time of purchase?

TheSpectator

worksurvivor said:

prettyandfluffy said:

I would be inclined to take them to an old-fashioned shoe repairer (cobbler) and get the buckle replaced, possibly both if they can't match what is on the shoe already.  Not free but shouldn't be expensive either and a lot less hassle.

I took them into a branch of Timpsons to see if they were repairable after the manageress of Clarks refused to accept the return. 

Having confirmation that they are repairable, I decided to seek satisfaction, and to pursue a complaint against Clarks first. 

I would like to have them accept liability, exchange the faulty goods, apologize for being so arsey, and confirm that staff will be given appropriate advice and training with regard to consumer law and customer interaction.

As has been said, if it was longer than 6 months then it's you that is incorrect on Consumer law and therefore Clarks are under no obligation to do any of the things you would like them to do.

Aylesbury_Duck

worksurvivor said:

prettyandfluffy said:

I would be inclined to take them to an old-fashioned shoe repairer (cobbler) and get the buckle replaced, possibly both if they can't match what is on the shoe already.  Not free but shouldn't be expensive either and a lot less hassle.

I would like to have them accept liability, exchange the faulty goods, apologize for being so arsey, and confirm that staff will be given appropriate advice and training with regard to consumer law and customer interaction.

The first of those two may require you to prove they are inherently faulty, as others have described.  The other requests can be ignored by Clarks if they wish.  You have no right to them.

Ergates

worksurvivor said:

Ergates said:

worksurvivor said:

Ergates said:

ButterCheese said:

I mean, theoretically you could have found "Dave's" card statement in the bin, and tried it on with every shop that Dave spent money in in order to get a refund?

You're missing the part about the OP also having a pair of sandals that exactly match the purchase details that are broken.

Civil cases are decided on balance of probability - we're well beyond that here.

Exactly — I have the shoe: QED. 

I resented the snide insinuation that the sandals presented for exchange may have been stolen.

As it's beyond 6 months then, putting aside the proof of purchase for the moment, Clarks' are allowed to ask you to provide evidence that the sandals were faulty, rather than damaged by use.  This is often in the form of a statement from some independent qualified person - a shoe repair place (e.g. Timpsons) should be able to do this.  They might charge - which you can claim back from the retailer if successful.   Might be worth getting a repair quote from them at the same time to determine if it's worth the time and effort to pursue this.

The broken buckle is evidence — if the buckle had not broken, the sandal would not be faulty.

Under consumer law, goods must be fit for purpose — one would reasonably expect a pair of sandals costing £70-odd to have buckles that are of sufficient quality to last longer than six months and a few days without breaking.

A broken buckle is evidence that a buckle broke, not that it was faulty.  It could have been broken by misuse, applying excess force etc.

However - that's irrelevant anyway.   After 6 months they are entitled to ask for an independent report.  If you can't or won't provide this, then they don't have to do anything.  If it's a manufacturing/design defect then the report will confirm this.

Aylesbury_Duck

worksurvivor said:

Ergates said:

worksurvivor said:

Ergates said:

ButterCheese said:

I mean, theoretically you could have found "Dave's" card statement in the bin, and tried it on with every shop that Dave spent money in in order to get a refund?

You're missing the part about the OP also having a pair of sandals that exactly match the purchase details that are broken.

Civil cases are decided on balance of probability - we're well beyond that here.

Exactly — I have the shoe: QED. 

I resented the snide insinuation that the sandals presented for exchange may have been stolen.

As it's beyond 6 months then, putting aside the proof of purchase for the moment, Clarks' are allowed to ask you to provide evidence that the sandals were faulty, rather than damaged by use.  This is often in the form of a statement from some independent qualified person - a shoe repair place (e.g. Timpsons) should be able to do this.  They might charge - which you can claim back from the retailer if successful.   Might be worth getting a repair quote from them at the same time to determine if it's worth the time and effort to pursue this.

The broken buckle is evidence — if the buckle had not broken, the sandal would not be faulty.

Under consumer law, goods must be fit for purpose — one would reasonably expect a pair of sandals costing £70-odd to have buckles that are of sufficient quality to last longer than six months and a few days without breaking.

One would, that's a perfectly reasonable expectation.  However, under consumer law, the onus is on your son to prove they are inherently faulty.  In other words, that they were always likely to fail prematurely as a result of poor design or manufacture.  The broken buckle may be evidence, but it's not necessarily evidence of an inherent flaw.

You can't just pick and choose which bits of consumer law you want to heed and those you wish to ignore.

Emmia

worksurvivor said:

prettyandfluffy said:

I would be inclined to take them to an old-fashioned shoe repairer (cobbler) and get the buckle replaced, possibly both if they can't match what is on the shoe already.  Not free but shouldn't be expensive either and a lot less hassle.

I took them into a branch of Timpsons to see if they were repairable after the manageress of Clarks refused to accept the return. 

Having confirmation that they are repairable, I decided to seek satisfaction, and to pursue a complaint against Clarks first. 

I would like to have them accept liability, exchange the faulty goods, apologize for being so arsey, and confirm that staff will be given appropriate advice and training with regard to consumer law and customer interaction.

You're unlikely to get any of that.

Take the shoes to Timpsons, get the buckles replaced (I'd do both) and move on with your life.

Okell

@worksurvivor -  perhaps I've misunderstood what Clarks have told you, but haven't they told you to take what evidence you have to the store where they were bought, and they will be able to find the transaction instore?

"I can advised [sic] you that the information you have listed above can be used instore to locate the order"

Have you gone back to the store with the info provided by your son and shown them the statement above from Clarks customer services that they should be able to locate the order?

Although others have suggested that after 6 months you need some kind of independent report showing that the sandals were "faulty" I'm not always convinced that that is necessary.  After 6 months the onus is on you to "prove" your claim on the balance of probability and I think it's perfectly open to you to rely on the mere fact of the buckle failing after 8 months or whatever as evidence in itself that the sandals obviously were not of satisfactory quality in terms of durability when they were bought.  Of course an independent report saying that would make it easier to prove your claim, but I'm not convinced it is legally necessary.  However, in the absence of an independent report it does become a "he said/she said" situation.

If Clarks either won't accept your son's evidence regarding the purchase or won't accept your argument that the sandals are obviously not of satisfactory quality, your son will have to decide if he wants issue a court claim against them.  Again, in the absence of an independent report a court would have to decide whether the sandals were not of satisfactory quality or your son had caused the damage. 

Whether you can issue a claim on his behalf or whether he would have to do that himself, I don't know.

user1977

ButterCheese said:

it might be that the till receipt is the only proof of purchase they accept.  Matching up the transaction and card details may not necessarily prove that you purchased the sandals - it only proves that some sandals were sold using those card details

And a till receipt similarly only proves that a pair of that variety of sandals was purchased, not necessarily the specific pair being returned (hence the possible dodge of buying an additional pair and then returning the faulty pair with the new receipt...).

In any event, the law doesn't specify any particular method of evidence as being necessary, in theory you could all just pitch up in court and the judge decides who sounds most convincing.